The Virginian

Thursday, December 31, 2015

But here’s the thing: The real issue isn’t whether or not to attack Bill to indirectly attack Hillary — it’s about directly attacking Hillary for how she herself treated the women involved.

Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a “feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them.

She attacked them. When allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.”

Multiple people also report that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”

And there are multiple reports of her and her detectives doing just that. Kathleen Willey — whom Bill allegedly sexually assaulted in 1993 — claims that detectives hired by Hillary threatened her and her children and even killed her cat.

Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill of raping her in 1978, reports that she was also threatened by Hillary. Oh, and let’s not forget — she had no problem blaming the (very true) allegations that Bill was having an affair with Lewinsky on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Anything to save a man’s career, amirite? Does this woman sound “feminist” to you?

Feminism in the Islamic world.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims. ...

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

Can someone explain the difference?

The Declaration of Independence is the most racist, sexist, and bigoted document written since Hammurabi’s Code. Completely devoid of the ideals of equality, inclusivity, and sensitivity, this document has led to horrible things like oppression, imperialism, and George W. Bush.

Written by a privileged, white male rapist slave owner to avoid paying taxes to a centralized government, it was signed by a non-diverse panel of rich white men for the purpose of independently oppressing colonized ethnic minorities and women while abusing the environment.

Just take a look at the way it was written: “When in the course of human events…” This presupposes human interests above animal rights and the environment’s wellbeing.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men…” This is an overtly sexist and exclusive claim that the privileged class of straight, white men can monopolize truth.

“…are created equal…” This assumes a deist creationist perspective that denies the scientific facts of biological evolution. It also upholds the “good old boy” patriarchal principle that all privileged white men are the only ones equal in the eyes of the law. That’s part of the problem.

The Declaration of Independence is misleading in that it does not reflect the convergence of Asians, Africans, and Native Americans in the development of the United States. All who signed this document should be protested until they resign their respective positions of employment while undergoing mandatory sensitivity training.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Well, this is embarrassing. It appears that devout Muslims have complex rules about who can have sex with their slaves.

The fatwa was among a huge trove of documents captured by U.S. Special Operations Forces during a raid targeting a top Islamic State official in Syria in May. Reuters has reviewed the document, which has not been previously published, but couldn't independently confirm its authenticity.

Among the fatwa's injunctions are bans on a father and son having sex with the same female slave; and the owner of a mother and daughter having sex with both. Joint owners of a female captive are similarly enjoined from intercourse because she is viewed as "part of a joint ownership."

The United Nations and human rights groups have accused the Islamic State of the systematic abduction and rape of thousands of women and girls as young as 12, especially members of the Yazidi minority in northern Iraq. Many have been given to fighters as a reward or sold as sex slaves.

Far from trying to conceal the practice, Islamic State has boasted about it and established a department of "war spoils" to manage slavery. Reuters reported on the existence of the department on Monday.

In an April report, Human Rights Watch interviewed 20 female escapees who recounted how Islamic State fighters separated young women and girls from men and boys and older women. They were moved "in an organized and methodical fashion to various places in Iraq and Syria." They were then sold or given as gifts and repeatedly raped or subjected to sexual violence.

DOS AND DON'TS

Fatwa No. 64, dated Jan. 29, 2015, and issued by Islamic State's Committee of Research and Fatwas, appears to codify sexual relations between IS fighters and their female captives for the first time, going further than a pamphlet issued by the group in 2014 on how to treat slaves.

The fatwa starts with a question: "Some of the brothers have committed violations in the matter of the treatment of the female slaves. These violations are not permitted by Sharia law because these rules have not been dealt with in ages. Are there any warnings pertaining to this matter?"

It then lists 15 injunctions, which in some instances go into explicit detail. For example:

"If the owner of a female captive, who has a daughter suitable for intercourse, has sexual relations with the latter, he is not permitted to have intercourse with her mother and she is permanently off limits to him. Should he have intercourse with her mother then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her daughter and she is to be off limits to him."

Islamic State's rape of female captives has been well documented, but a leading IS expert at Princeton University, Cole Bunzel, who has reviewed many of the group's writings, said the fatwa went beyond what has previously been published by the militants on how to treat female slaves.

"It reveals the actual concerns of IS slave owners," he said in an email.

Still, he cautioned that not "everything dealt with in the fatwa is indicative of a relevant violation. It doesn't mean father and son were necessarily sharing a girl. They're at least being 'warned' not to. But I bet some of these violations were being committed."

The fatwa also instructs owners of female slaves to "show compassion toward her, be kind to her, not humiliate her, and not assign her work she is unable to perform." An owner should also not sell her to an individual whom he knows will mistreat her.

Professor Abdel Fattah Alawari, dean of Islamic Theology at Al-Azhar University, a 1,000-year-old Egyptian center for Islamic learning, said Islamic State "has nothing to do with Islam" and was deliberately misreading centuries-old verses and sayings that were originally designed to end, rather than encourage, slavery.

"Islam preaches freedom to slaves, not slavery. Slavery was the status quo when Islam came around," he said. "Judaism, Christianity, Greek, Roman, and Persian civilizations all practiced it and took the females of their enemies as sex slaves. So Islam found this abhorrent practice and worked to gradually remove it.”

In September 2014 more than 120 Islamic scholars from around the world issued an open letter to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refuting the group's religious arguments to justify many of its actions. The scholars noted that the "reintroduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam."

There seems to be a difference of opinion within Islam about slavery and what you can do with slaves. Yeah, yeah, I know what you’re saying, these are ISIS warriors who take sex slaves, not true Muslims. But wait: these are Islamic State theologians. Who are you or anyone else to question their faith and deny that they are Islamic and true followers of Muhammad who, lest we forget, was also a warlord, kept slaves and had intercourse with at least one 9 year old girl. In the Muslim faith, Muhammad was the perfect man whose precepts are not to be overthrown. So from the perspective of true Islam, it's the scholars who are trying to deny Muhammad who are the apostates and ISIS represents the real Islam.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

The cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook worshipped claims he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. But phone records and other evidence uncovered by federal investigators cast suspicion on his story.

The FBI has questioned the cleric, Roshan Zamir Abbassi, about his phone communications with Farook — including a flurry of at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

Abbassi maintained at a press conference that he didn’t know Farook any better than he knew the reporters in the room. But members of the mosque say Farook was a fixture there. He had been coming to pray and study at least three times a week for two years. In fact, he memorized the Koran at there, something you cannot do without learning Arabic, a subject Abbassi teaches.

Frankly, this is just sad, considering all the sacrifices made by U.S. military personnel.Of course, the Democrats are the party of defeat, so it's no surprise the public thinks we're losing the war on terror.

That awful deal with the Iranian government regarding its nuclear weapons program has largely gone unmentioned since President Barack Obama announced it was done, even though that’s not the end of the story. ... even the United Nations admits that Iran’s recent inter-continental ballistic missile test violated any understanding of agreement ...

Obamacare is just as bad as ever, too, although that’s no longer news. By now the public knows that it won’t be getting an average $2,500 a year savings and won’t be able to keep its plans or doctors and that all the other promises that were made won’t be kept ...

Most of those Republican candidates also go unmentioned, of course, and judging by all the “Bernie” bumper stickers we’re seeing we think there’s more going in in the Democratic race than you’d know from reading the news.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Christmas in History: First Media Reports of Nativity Story

A homeless couple claiming that an "angel" had declared their infant child "the son of God," was caught red-handed while apparently trying to engage in some ritual involving animals behind a local inn. Despite his young age, the unplanned and undocumented child whom they referred to as "Jesus" had already acquired notoriety in the religious underworld, operating under several aliases including Immanuel, Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, and The Prince of Peace. Authorities are investigating a possible link to the highly profitable smuggling of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

The police arrived at the scene after a call made by a local PETA activist who complained that the couple and the mob that followed them had inconvenienced the resident animals and "displaced handfuls of hay" in order to make a bed for the infant. "What sort of people are these that would invade a peaceful manger, disturb the animals in their home, deprive them of sleep of nourishment, and do YHWH knows what else with them?"

Prosecutors are considering charging the couple as accessories to an unauthorized light show that terrorized area shepherds who happened to be tending their flocks at night. No charges are currently being considered against the infant, though authorities have made clear that he will require careful observation and possibly therapy as he grows up.

At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether Charles and David Koch, two libertarian political activists, should be considered — his remarkable words — “an enemy of the state.” He posed the same question about Exxon, and John Kerry, who could have been president of these United States, said that he looked forward to the seizure of Exxon’s assets for the crime of “proselytizing” impermissibly about the question of global warming.

For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups.

They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.

They shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an “outdated concept” and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share. They are demanding mandatory ideological indoctrination sessions for nonconforming students. They have violently assaulted students studying in libraries and assaulted student journalists documenting their activities.

They have staged dozens of phony hate crimes and sexual assaults as a pretext for persecuting unpopular organizations and people.

What they cannot achieve by legislation or litigation, they seek to achieve by simple violence, left-wing activists having smashed, looted, and burned portions of Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, where Koreans and other Asian minorities were specifically targeted. As on college campuses, they have made a point of assaulting journalists documenting their violence. They have rioted in Philadelphia and in other cities.

Chain-reaction brawls involving up to 2,000 people erupted in one of Kentucky's largest malls Saturday night, forcing the entire mall and businesses in the surrounding area to shut down, police said.

The hours-long chaos at Mall St. Matthews began about 7 p.m. ET when the six St. Matthews police officers assigned to the mall for the holiday season began responding to "disturbances," said Officer Dennis McDonald, a police spokesman...

About 8 p.m., authorities started to advise stores in the mall to close their doors, but those involved in the brawls were refusing to leave. "Businesses were in the process of closing their doors, steel grates, and you had juveniles that were not allowing businesses to close up — [they were] climbing on the grates," McDonald said.

"This was a riot," McDonald added. "It was crazy."

No one arrested. Police restrained. Wanna take any bets on the identity of the "Yoots."

St. Matthews, a suburb of about 18,000 people outside of Louisville, is a normally quiet city that sees no more than two murders a year, McDonald said. "I've been a police officer 33 years, and I haven't ever seen anything like this before," he said. "We always plan for worst-case scenario, but this exceeded that."

Muslims hide the terrorists in their midst

Muslims are boycotting the country’s key anti-radicalisation programme, The Times can disclose, after it emerged that less than a tenth of extremism tip-offs were coming directly from the community or faith leaders.

The revelation that there were fewer than 300 community tip-offs in six months to the government’s Prevent programme will raise concern that the police are being denied information that might prevent terrorist attacks.

This is what happens when you make every effort to accommodate Muslims who don't assimilate. The fools on the Left, and that includes the fools in the FBI, are still under the delusion that making nice will get Muslims to give up the radicals in their community. They are eluding themselves and getting their neighbors killed. But that's the price of moral superiority.

To hear the patronizing wise men of the Republican Party tell it, anyone who would vote for Donald Trump for president must be deranged. “Trumpkins,” they call them, mental midgets and xenophobic troglodytes who’ve crawled out from their survivalist caves in order to destroy the Beltway Establishment.

How their resentful attitude galls the crack cadres of campaign consultants who brought conservatives halfhearted standard-bearers like John McCain and Mitt Romney to do sham battle against Barack Obama in 2008 and ’12, then return to the safety of the US Senate and a beachfront mansion in La Jolla.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Hallelujah Christmas

Richard Fernandez points out the obvious. The Obama Presidency has broken all the old, unwritten rules that allowed the government to work without invoking the nuclear option: impeachment. In the old days if a President couldn't get congress to pass a law that he wanted the policy wasn't implemented. No longer.

Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law. If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway.

Official Washington won't utter the words "impeachment" because Republicans fear being called racists and Democrats - as the party of the Left - is OK with dictatorship as long as it's their dictatorship. Nixon would have survived Watergate if Republicans had had the kind of party-above-country position as Democrats.

The simultaneous proclivity for personalistic leadership in Trump, Hillary and Obama is probably a rational poll driven response to a perceived failure of the rules. Strassel argues that the really worrisome trend is that voters are willing to set aside the rules as long as they get results.

The more outrageous Mr. Trump is, the more his numbers soar. The more Mrs. Clinton promises to cram an agenda down the throats of her “enemies,” the more enthusiastic her base. The more unrestrained the idea, the more press coverage; the more ratings soar, the more unrestrained the idea. The humble candidates—those with big ideas, but with respect for order and honor—are lost to the shouting.

Perhaps the "humble candidates—those with big ideas, but with respect for order and honor" are in the wrong saloon. The order and system that used to make "big ideas" work are temporarily inoperative. The world is in a state of transposition. It is waiting for an event, a man, a technology -- a something -- that can make the road from out of this dead end. That requires a skillset that most Western politicians don't have. Because voters sense that politics is in flux past experience as a professional public servant is deprecated. In a situation where past organizational knowledge is regarded as a liability, a businessman can be as good as an ex-First Lady. Trump may not have what it takes; the danger for many of his rivals is the public know they don't have what it takes.

In the old days I would have preferred Ted Cruz rather than Donald Trump. Cruz is cerebral and a great debater. But today we need a brawler to lead the counter-revolution. But there's a lot of talent in the Republican line-up to fill all the cabinet posts.

The Islamic State's religious scholars have ruled that taking the organs of non-Muslims is permissible under Islamic law to save the life of a Muslim, because killing apostates to eat their flesh has previously been allowed.

Well, if cannibalism is OK, they why stop at treating your enemies like Planned Parenthood does babies.

Someone who seriously believes that Trump will get the Republican nomination and will beat Hillary begins by saying that:

If you have been reading this blog for any length of time, you know I’m ambivalent about Trump as a candidate. I’m enjoying the Trump Effect, but I’m not a Trump fan. I don’t hate the guy or have any strong feelings about him one way or the other. I’m just not a fan of his personal style and I have a tough time imagining him as president. Therefore, I have not thought much about him being president.

Here's what everyone who dislikes Trump's "personal style" does not quite get: it's his personal style that has gotten him where he is.

Is he a "movement conservative?" No.

Is he a Tea Partier? No.

Is he a Libertarian? No.

Does he have an "up from poverty" story? Hell no!

Is he even a life-long Republican? No.

Is he the only one opposed to illegal immigration? No.

So what is it about Donald Trump that allows DRUDGE to post these poll results:

IT'S HIS STYLE! The Left hates him with the fire of a thousand suns. Public intellectuals on the Right hate his bombast, his arrogance, his conspicuous display of wealth.

Hey! You ever hear of Rush Limbaugh? The guy who revolutionized AM radio? The guy with the largest audience in radio? The one-man show who beats NPR?

Sure, you will not attract an audience or get people to listen to you if you don't address the things that concern people. But if you articulate what people believe and do it in such a way that truly talks to people on their level, you will be successful.

When people hear most politicians speak, their words sound like blah blah blah. I'm a conservative and during the last Presidential election I went to several rallies for Mitt Romney. He's a good man and would have made a good President. But I cannot recall anything he said at those rallies that was memorable.

If Trump is going to win the nomination and go on to win the election it will be because of his style. It's going to be interesting to see if there are enough people who like his message and like his style to carry him to the White House. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Trump is currently America's best chance.

Kwanzaa: A fake holiday created by a black Marxist radical to stick it to The Man

A holiday story: There once was a man named Ron Everett, aka. Doctor Maulana Karenga who during the late 1960s was a commander of a black power movement calling itself United Slaves [now Organization Us] which was a violent rival to the Black Panthers. In the 1970s Karenga served four years in prison for conspiracy and assault in the sadistic torturing of two female followers. An avowed Marxist, he now spends his days, naturally, as a professor and chair of African studies at California State University, Long Beach.

The rather unseemly Karenga’s legacy lives on in the holiday festival our children learn about in school called “Kwanzaa.” But I wonder how many of these children learn that in 1966 Karenga quite simply invented Kwanzaa out of thin air. Billy Hallowell’s informative TheBlaze article laying out the celebration in great detail is an excellent read. I, however, am a touch less deferential given the true motives and meaning behind this contrived holiday’s genesis.

Peruse the Official Kwanzaa website, and it praises the “values of African culture.” But Kwanzaa ceremonies have no African counterparts; they are the contrivance of one man with revolutionary and racist predilections. Some aspects of this faux holiday don’t even make sense. For example, on the day of “muhindi” ears of corn are set aside for each child in the family, but corn is not even indigenous to Africa. Corn was first cultivated by Mexican Indians and brought to Africa by the Portuguese.

There’s a reason a so-called “harvest festival” takes place in the period of December 26th to January 1st. This incongruity springs from Karenga’s real aim which was to make Kwanzaa the anti-Christmas. Said Karenga in a 1978 interview: “I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of Bloods would be partying.” That in any of the textbooks? Also, consider these coincidences. The Kwanzaa celebration includes a wine glass that closely resembles a chalice associated with the Last Supper; the seven-stemmed candlestick could easily be mistaken for a Hanukkah menorah.

Like it or not, Kwanzaa’s roots are subtly racist. Karenga is blatantly honest in that he envisioned Kwanzaa as a black alternative to supplant Christmas, which he calls “a white man’s holiday based on a white man’s religion.” (Wrong again Professor: Christianity thrived in North Africa long before it became a force in Western Europe.)

Karenga’s Kwanzaa, the website states, “was created to reaffirm and restore our rootedness [sic] in African culture. It is, therefore, an expression of recovery and reconstruction of African culture which was being conducted in the general context of the Black Liberation Movement of the ’60′s and in the specific context of The Organization Us, the founding organization of Kwanzaa and the authoritative keeper of its tradition.” (Black Liberation Movement, huh? Got it.)

The website further offers that Kwanzaa is “based on the rich, ancient and varied common ground of their Africanness.” I’ll set aside the oddly contradictory statement “varied common ground” and simply present that while this sounds all warm and fuzzy an ugly truth belies this notion of African oneness: Africans have done more than their fair share of brutalizing one another. Nor have they ever had anything close to continental unity on such a vast land mass that stretches from the ports of the Mediterranean, to the rocky shores of the Cape Of Good Hope. As with natives of any continent, Africans have in fact waged bloody and savage war among themselves for centuries, well before the arrival of white colonists or slave traders and long after their last ship sailed. Inter-tribal genocides in our own day have wiped out millions in central Africa and cruel dictatorships sprinkle the continent while psychotic warlords rule with medieval brutality from Somalia to Liberia.

This false image of pan-African identity is evident even in the name of the holiday. The term “kwanzaa” comes from the Swahili “matuda ya kwanza” which means “first fruits of the harvest”…in winterof course. The website explains that in the early days of the holiday (way back in the late 1960s) there were seven children of the Organization Us who each wanted to represent a letter of Kwanza, so what the heck, just add the extra ‘a’ to make it craps. There are no rules when you make up your own holiday. Karenga, an African studies professor remember, calls Swahili, “the most widely spoken African language.” But Swahili is common in only a few countries and they’re all on or near the east coast, whereas most American slaves were snatched from the west and as such Swahili to them would have been as alien a sound as Cantonese. If anything the most common tongue in Africa these days is Arabic. Whatever, professor.

I am well aware of the manic obsession in our public schools with “celebrating diversity” (except where it matters most: diversity of ideas) but at what point does a school system allow the truth to trump political correctness? Perhaps a starting point is to no longer acknowledge a conjured up holiday by a felonious 1960s radical with no roots whatsoever in either the continent or the culture it professes to celebrate. Why legitimize a racist whose real purpose was to stick it to the man by sabotaging Christmas especially—a holiday celebrated on all continents by over billion people of all races—by forwarding a decidedly anti-American (and anti-white) revolutionary statement thinly veiled as a cultural celebration?

The oft-overlooked issue I have with denying school children the true story of Christmas while proffering Kwanzaa stems from my love of history as much as my personal faith. After all, people can hold differing views as to the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. But no one can deny that he was the most significant figure in Western history whose simple but powerful message of peace on earth and goodwill towards mankind fundamentally changed the world in which we live—and is still shaping the story of humanity 2,000 years after his death.

For our schools to prohibit its students from even commemorating the birth of such a legitimate force while giving a nod to a made-up holiday no older than I am simply because of hypersensitivity to its racial overtone is educational malpractice, not to mention of course the ultimate expression of political correctness gone mad.

I would observe that students were not required to declare a faith, only to copy a declaration of faith. That's like the difference between praying in school and staging a play in which a character says a prayer. That is, I don't think it violates the Establishment Clause to require students to copy the statement of faith as a calligraphy exercise as the students are taught not that Islam is the true religion but the history and substance of the religion of Islam.

The biggest problem here is people who don't take religion seriously teaching people who take religion seriously about other people who take religion seriously. It's all pen strokes to them. It's time to end the government monopoly on education.

Mark comments:

Moreover, it imposes a Western-centric view on what is a non-Western system. Students were required to make the Islamic profession of faith. Period. That it was written, that it was written in a language that they did not understand, that the students may not have even known what they are saying -- all this does not matter from the Muslim perspective. From that perspective, merely making the profession makes one Muslim. That you understand it is not necessary. There are plenty of voluntary Muslims out there reciting the Koran in Arabic who have no idea exactly what they are saying because they do not speak that language. And once one makes the profession, thereby becoming Muslim, for one to then speak contrary to Islam is to make one, not an infidel, but an apostate.

Another comment by R&B:

Americans simply need to stop making declarations about what Islam is or isn't based on their own wishful thinking and humanistic principles. The religion does have its own little codes and rules that apply to both Muslims and others and converts and they aren't simply what you presuppose them to be based on a Western or secular or Christian understanding of how life interacts with religion. It's. Not. The. Same. The amount of commentary on Islamic theology by Westerners who have no understanding of it is astounding and alarming.

Secular people view religion as an outmoded superstition and religious people as either foolish, superstitious, deluded or stupid. Most can put up with it as long as it stays in its place. And that place is out of sight. If they give it any though at all, they view the leading religion in the West – Christianity – as the Department of HEW at prayer. From what they have gathered in popular culture, God is the almighty patsy. “Jesus is love.” The God of Christians is meek and mild, forgiving everything. That’s supposed to be His job even as he’s kicked to the curb. And in the view of the secularists, it's also the role that Christians are supposed to play. If they don't, they're accused of not being Christians.

Many Christian denominations are led be people who have the same opinion. For many it’s a job with no heavy lifting. Parenthetically, there is a history for this. In old England younger sons were sent eitherto the military or to the Church; their faith or lack thereof was of no consequence.

Judaism is even farther away from”faith” than Mainline Christianity. It’s a cultural identity that doesn’t demand belief in God. Jews who are atheists, and there are many, don’t lose their identity as Jews.

Most people see what they wish to see, or what they believe they should see; not what is really there. Secular people see themselves as neutral. But it’s a neutrality that piously proclaims that its moral and ethical positions are the neutral position. That's deluded. If you want neutrality try Switzerland. That's the real deal; taking no position between the Nazis and the Allies, between killing six million Jews and trying to rescue them. It’s a country where art stolen by the Nazis in World Ware II still shows up.

Neutrality is a lie when Christianity is driven from the public sphere. By removing signs of the religion that the majority of the people in the country profess, the secularists who decide the laws of this country actually believe that they are enforcing a "neutrality" that is specifically forbidden in the American constitution. The part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereo, ..." That prohibition against free exercise once meant that people were free to exercise their religion, but no more. Now it's not OK to exercise your religion if they catch you doing it on public lands or in public places maintained by public funds. A valedictorian may not speak of her faith in Jesus and a football team may not pray before a game. A cross may not exist on public lands and if the Decalogue stands on public land it must be removed. The excuse usually given is that the expression of Christian faith may offend non-Christians, a right that is NOT found in the Constitution. And all this, they tell each other - and us - is to protect religious freedom. The lies we tell other people are nothing to the lies we tell ourselves.

The secular chattering classes disdain those countries like Iran that are ruled by the Ayatollahs. But we have our own Ayatollahs: people who tell us and our elected officials what they can say and do. They are referred to as the Supreme Court. Once they were limited by the words in the Constitution but now they are free of those constraints. Instead of a brake on the passions of the moment, they now lead the march to that glorious future. The very thought of breaking one of their commandments is grounds for accusations of heresy. One may burn the American flag and be praised as a brave defender of freedom, but vigorously dissent from the Supreme's diktats and, if there is a stake handy, you will be burned on it. Presidential elections often hinge, not on who the temporary holder of that office, but on whom he will appoint to that much more important tribunal. They are the ones who make the really important decisions. It's their world, we're just living in it.

This is why Ann, everyone in the press and every Democrat doesn’t get it. First, they don’t take religions seriously. Would anyone in that group die for their faith? Multitudes of Christians who are being martyred in the Middle East are. To ask the question is to answer it. They view all religions as important as flavors of ice cream. Today I like chocolate and tomorrow vanilla and it’s all a matter of taste. They are incapable of understanding that Islam is not something that’s practiced one day a week. The really “smart” may even know that Muslims pray five times a day. But they don’t know what makes a Muslim. They may know that the real head of Iran is a Muslim cleric but don’t really understand why.

This far the ignorance and cultural arrogance of Ann and the rest of secular America has not impacted their lives all that much. It’s exhibited in the inevitable media reactions following some kind of attack - fear of the backlash by Americans against Muslims that never comes. It’s funny in a way. Drawing cartoons of Mohammad is followed by riots throughout the world with dozens killed. The press is afraid to publish the cartoons. Murder 14 Americans in San Bernardino and Democrats go to a mosque to show their solidarity.

“At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. For to convince you need to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack: Reason and Right” Miguel de Unamuno

Greedy Innkeeper or Generous Capitalist?

We are indebted to Brian Wesbury for this classic.

The Bible story of the virgin birth is at the center of much of the holiday cheer this time of year. The book of Luke tells us that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem because Caesar Augustus decreed a census should be taken. Mary gave birth after arriving in Bethlehem and placed baby Jesus in a manger because there was “no room for them in the inn.”

Some people believe Mary and Joseph were mistreated by a greedy innkeeper, who only cared about profits and decided the couple was not “worth” his normal accommodations. This version of the story (narrative) has been repeated many times in plays, skits, and sermons. It fits an anti-capitalist mentality that paints business owners as greedy, or even evil.

It persists even though the Bible records no complaints and there was apparently no charge for the stable. It may be the stable was the only place available. Bethlehem was over-crowded with people forced to return to their ancestral home for a census – ordered by the Romans – for the purpose of levying taxes. If there was a problem, it was due to unintended consequences of government policy. In this narrative, the government caused the problem.

The innkeeper was generous to a fault – a hero even. He was over-booked, but he charitably offered his stable, a facility he built with unknowing foresight. The innkeeper was willing and able to offer this facility even as government officials, who ordered and administered the census, slept in their own beds with little care for the well-being of those who had to travel regardless of their difficult life circumstances.

If you must find “evil” in either of these narratives, remember that evil is ultimately perpetrated by individuals, not the institutions in which they operate. And this is why it’s important to favor economic and political systems that limit the use and abuse of power over others. In the story of baby Jesus, a government law that requires innkeepers to always have extra rooms, or to take in anyone who asks, would “fix” the problem.

But these laws would also have unintended consequences. Fewer investors would back hotels because the cost of the regulations would reduce returns on investment. A hotel big enough to handle the rare census would be way too big in normal times. Even a bed and breakfast would face the potential of being sued. There would be fewer hotel rooms, prices would rise, and innkeepers would once again be called greedy. And if history is our guide, government would chastise them for price-gouging and then try to regulate prices.

This does not mean free markets are perfect or create utopia; they aren’t and they don’t. But businesses can’t force you to buy a service or product. You have a choice – even if it’s not exactly what you want. And good business people try to make you happy in creative and industrious ways.

Government doesn’t always care. In fact, if you happen to live in North Korea or Cuba, and are not happy about the way things are going, you can’t leave. And just in case you try, armed guards will help you think things through.

This is why the Framers of the US Constitution made sure there were “checks and balances” in our system of government. These checks and balances don’t always lead to good outcomes; we can think of many times when some wanted to ignore these safeguards. But, over time, the checks and balances help prevent the kinds of despotism we’ve seen develop elsewhere.

Neither free market capitalism, nor the checks and balances of the Constitution are the equivalent of having a true Savior. But they should give us all hope that things won’t be as bad as so many seem to think they will be.

Sunday, December 20, 2015

The biggest problem here is people who don't take religion seriously teaching people who take religion seriously about other people who take religion seriously. It's all pen strokes to them. It's time to end the government monopoly on education.

That may be what the poll says, but we don't hear from the majority. Why?

Is it because the media favors BLM and the ultra-Left on campus? Is it because the college faculty and administration is on the side of the Leftist activists? Is it because the students are afraid to speak up? Is it because there are a lot of people in academia whose paycheck depends on racial, ethnic and sexual grievances?

Yes.

As Glenn Reynolds says: IT’S ALWAYS BEEN A NOISY MINORITY, GINNED-UP BY “STUDENT LIFE” AND GRIEVANCE-STUDIES EDUCRATS TO DEMAND MORE MONEY FOR “STUDENT LIFE” AND GRIEVANCE-STUDIES EDUCRATS:

Angela Merkel, Paul Ryan, and the Islamization of America

I have always been milder in my criticism of GOP lawmakers than some, but nothing appalls me more than the latest démarche by Paul Ryan et al in acquiescing to Obama's immigration strategy vis-a-vis the Muslim world. This is all the more reprehensible since the GOP surrender occurred after the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks and before any even remotely effective programs have been put in place to separate out those inclined to blow up innocent citizens in the name of Allah, let alone to integrate other Muslims into our society in a manner consonant with our values and not Sharia law.

The major broadcast networks on Friday morning and evening showed no interest in reporting to viewers that The New York Times had scrubbed from an article on its website that contained a quote from President Obama telling columnists that he did not watch enough news coverage of the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks to truly grasp the anxiety of the American people.

While the liberal newspaper tried to claim that they merely altered the article and removed the line so as to create more space, numerous journalists disputed that claim with the simple fact that the sentenced was replaced with two paragraphs that combined for more words than the original sentence.

George Soros, the notorious business magnate, is shifting the responsibility for America's adventurism in the Middle East onto Europe, most notably Germany, American-German researcher, historian and strategic risk consultant F. William Engdahl underscores.

"Since John D. Rockefeller was advised to protect his wealth from government taxation by creating a tax-exempt philanthropic foundation in 1913, foundations have been used by American oligarchs to disguise a world of dirty deeds under the cover 'doing good for mankind,' known by the moniker 'philanthropy' for mankind-loving," Engdahl writes in his recent article for New Eastern Outlook.

George Soros, "a prominent international supporter of democratic ideals and causes" is no exception to the rule.

Under the false pretext of "democracy promotion" the notorious magnate created a network of foundations and instigated a series blatant regime changes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics after the collapse of the USSR.

"Now his foundations are up to their eyeballs in promoting propaganda serving the US-UK war agenda for destroying stability in Syria as they did in Libya three years ago, creating the current EU refugee crisis," Engdahl stresses.

It seems that Soros is making every effort to exacerbate the ongoing refugee crisis in the EU: the infamous philanthropist is urging European leaders to accept about one million of refugees annually and at the same time he is encouraging the desperate asylum seekers to flee to Europe.

Furthermore, Soros cynically recommends the European leaders to fork out and rebuild the asylum system.

Friday, December 18, 2015

Reuters witnessed Shkreli's predawn arrest at the Murray Hill Tower Apartments in midtown Manhattan. Law enforcement, including FBI agents, could be seen escorting the hoodie-clad 32-year-old into a car.

Now, it's possible that Reuters photographers were outside those apartments before dawn because of moxie and hustle. Maybe someone tipped them that a whole bunch of feds had just shown up at that building, and they put two and two together and ran right over in time for the shot. Maybe they heard coordination with the locals over police scanners.

Or maybe not.

Based on my experience with perp-walked clients1, I think the more likely scenario is that a government agent responsible for investigating and prosecuting Mr. Shkreli tipped Reuters off about the arrest — that someone told Reuters to be there to catch the perp walk.

If Reuters was there through independent investigation, then good for them. But if Reuters was there because of a tip from law enforcement, then I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

There are two subjects on which Reuters could have informed its audience, two sets of questions it could have answered:

Subject One: Who leaked the time and place of the arrest? Was it an FBI agent, a prosecutor, staff, a coordinating local cop? How high up in the government did the decision to leak the arrest go? Did the leak violate the law? Did it violate the defendant's rights? What was the government's purpose in leaking the time and place of the arrest? How does this instance fit into the pattern of which arrests get leaked and which don't? Which nonviolent defendants without records get arrested, and which get summonsed in (or self-surrender through arrangement with their lawyers), and why? What impact does a front-page picture of a defendant in handcuffs have on the jury pool? Is that impact a feature, or a bug, of leaking it? Was the leak intended to inflict extra-judicial humiliation and punishment on the defendant? If the government lies about whether or not it leaked, would you still keep it secret?

Subject Two: What would Martin Shkreli look like being led away in handcuffs?

It seems Reuters chose to address the second subject.

Remind you of another "perp walk?" How about the guy who made the video that Hillary! and Obama blamed for the attack that killed three Americans in Benghazi.

Members of the Yale University community on Thursday responded with a mix of embarrassment, sadness and literal disbelief to a viral video showing students there freely signing a petition that calls for the repeal of the First Amendment.

“It numbs the mind that dozens of Yale students could sign a petition to revoke the First Amendment,” freshman Grant Richardson wrote FoxNews.com in an email. “Besides the fact that the First Amendment lists the most fundamentally important rights we hold as Americans, it is rather embarrassing to think Yalies could not see the irony that they were petitioning away – their right to petition.”

And here's the reaction from a Yale Professor, which explains why Yale students will enthusiastically destroy free speech, a free press, the free exercise of religion, the right to freely assemble and the right to petition.

A member of the Yale Law School faculty also responded to the video, and wasn’t happy with what he saw.

“It’s a sad commentary on the present state of public opinion,” said Professor Bruce Ackerman. “This is a moment at which fundamental principles are under assault from both the left and the right.”

“The collection of 50 Yalie signatures for a petition to repeal the First Amendment is a sad commentary on the present state of public opinion.”

But Ackerman said he also felt the First Amendment debate wasn’t as important as more pressing issues.

“It does not remotely pose the same danger as the support of all Republican candidates, with the exception of Rand Paul, for President Obama’s unilateral war against ISIS in plain violation of the Constitution,” Ackerman said.

That part of the professor’s response didn’t sit well with Horowitz.

“This is exactly part of the problem. Why would Yale students, or university students anywhere in this country, feel a fidelity to our fundamental beliefs, when their professors try to shoehorn in anti-American sentiment at every opportunity?” he told FoxNews.com.

And, of course, the same people who defend the abortionists selling baby parts at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics have come out from under their rocks and claim that the video is doctored.

Yale University’s spokesman had a very different reaction to the video, essentially saying he did not believe the accuracy of what he saw.

“There are a number of heavily edited prank videos like this one circulating lately in which someone surreptitiously records people while pretending to support a position that they actually oppose, and trying to get the individuals they speak with to agree with them,” Tom Conroy wrote in an email. “I have to acknowledge that I don’t take them seriously as an accurate representation of what every person interviewed or shown in the videos believes.”

In the video, in which he is shown clearly explaining to several students that the petition calls for repeal of the First Amendment, Horowitz said he was able to quickly collect nearly 60 signatures in less than an hour. Among those who signed were students who appeared to enthusiastically support the abolition of their First Amendment rights.

“I think it’s really awesome that you’re out here,” one man says in the video.

The three horsewomen of the feminist apocalypse say they were mystified as to why women seem to like America. So let me spell it out for them. America is still the land of opportunity for women and men from all nations. Any Polish and Costa Rican woman would gladly come to America for a better life, and, although it pains me to say it, I suspect English women will not be far behind.

Because third-wave feminism believes that all gifts must flow from state coffers, it cannot appreciate why brave, hard-working female doctors, entrepreneurs and others might want to come to a place that will reward the value they contribute to the economy.

They’d rather America was like Sweden, where they say all the right things about feminism, even if uncontrolled immigration and lies about crime have made Malmö the rape capital of Europe, as hordes of Muslim migrants rape Swedish girls with impunity. Just as long as every child gets a free “MEN SUCK!” leaflet from the government.

I understand the Grand Grievance Tour continues, and these three stunning and brave specimens are now off to speak to Obama’s people about what a terrible place America is. (Obama no doubt agrees.) So for now we’ll have to warm ourselves with anticipation at the publication of their full report in June 2016 — just in time for liberal politicians to shove the dodgy stats, special pleading and professional victimhood down the necks of so-called “low-information voters.”

Anyway, as I say, well done America. If the UN hates you, you’re on the right track.

“Assault weapons” is a made-up term, used to scare citizens into thinking that military weapons were commonly being sold and used on the streets of the United States. Thanks to a dishonest and incompetent media, millions of Americans thought (and still think) that machine guns could simply be purchased at the local gun store. The reality that the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons for the civilian market in 1986, was always hushed up.

Harvard has advised students to lecture their non-Ivy-League relatives on liberal values in a bizarre set of holiday placemats to take home over Christmas.

The laminated cards raise some likely hot topics that lesser-educated family members may raise at the dinner table, then offers a suggested response.

Covering such complex issues as police brutality, racial divisions, and the Syrian war, one of the sections tells students to say: 'Racial justice includes welcoming Syrian refugees.'

One question to be braced for is: 'Why are black students complaining? Shouldn't they be happy to be in college?'
In response, the worldly scholars should 'calmly' explain: 'When I hear students expressing their experiences on campus I don’t hear complaining.'

Students are also told what side to take on the issue of murdered black teenager Tamir Rice in 2014 - an issue which continues to divide the country.

To make it through the spate of pesky questions, Harvard advised, students should 'breathe' and 'listen mindfully'.

Some Deans apologized. The other SJWs thought this kind of brainwashing is the fundamental purpose of a Harvard education.

At what point in Donald Trump's inaugural address do you figure the GOP establishment will finally grasp what's been happening?

...

Trump is a runaway hit with Americans for the simple reason that he's the only candidate saying anything Americans care about.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, committed by Muslim immigrants -- which followed the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants; the 9/11 terrorist attacks committed by Muslim immigrants; the Fort Hood terrorist attack committed by a Muslim immigrant; the Boston Marathon terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants, and on and on -- Trump suggested a temporary pause on Muslim immigration.

The other candidates responded by attacking him viciously. Now, the eunuchs are duking it out over who has the most aggressive approach to ... fighting ISIS!

Asked why he called Trump's proposal "unhinged," Jeb! explained: "Well, first of all, we need to destroy ISIS in the caliphate."

Marco Rubio said: "The problem is we had an attack in San Bernardino," adding that "what's important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS."

Ted Cruz said: "We need a president who understands the first obligation of the commander in chief is to keep America safe. If I am elected president ... we will utterly destroy ISIS."

Why are Republicans talking about starting a war in Syria to stop Muslim immigrants from killing Americans in America? Is it our job to straighten out Syria? Can't our government just stop bringing the terrorists here? If Rubio thinks he knows how to govern Syria, he's free to run for president there. (Except he'd have to stop talking about his dad the bartender because Muslims don't drink.)

Republicans love pointing out that all the gun restrictions proposed by Democrats after every mass shooting would have done absolutely nothing to stop that particular mass shooting.

But the GOP's demand that we take out ISIS would also have done nothing to prevent the San Bernardino attack. As we know from Jim Comey, the director of the FBI: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were planning a terrorist attack against Americans before ISIS existed.

It's as if there's a law of toughness conservation: The weaker a candidate is on protecting our borders, the more aggressively he talks about bombing foreign countries, a move known as "the Lindsey Graham."

....

Here's an idea: We let backward, poverty-stricken, misogynistic, clitorectomy-performing Third Worlders scratch out a living in their medieval hellholes, and just keep them out of our country. Also known as: the Trump Plan.

Except the fun parts when Trump was speaking, the candidates talked about almost nothing else at the debate but carpet-bombing the Middle East, taking out this leader or that group, sending American forces to train Sunni Arabs, touting the Kurds, announcing their specific strategies for defeating ISIS, giving perfect little answers about our nuclear throw-weights and the "nuclear triad" and correctly identifying the "good guys" and "bad guys" -- all of whom live 7,000 miles away from us.

"In my opinion, we've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now ..."

The nice thing about having your own helicopter is you can see the terrain below. The rest of them keep bumping into one another, as if they're 9-year-olds trying to out-precocious one another on knowing unimportant military terminology and the pronunciation of foreign names.

As we learned from Spelling Bee champ Rubio, the "nuclear triad" refers to the fact that we have nukes on (1) the ground, (2) airplanes and (3) submarines.

Wow, isn't that fascinating? Having learned it, I now have to excise it from my brain, as Sherlock Holmes would, as useless knowledge.

Did FDR know how to change the oil on a landing craft vehicle?

These debates have turned Republicans into self-parodies of wonkery over common sense. Without Trump in the debate, the entire audience would have been asleep in 30 minutes.

Rubio lectures Americans that "we need to understand who ISIS is." Rubio needs to understand what a border is.

At this point, the most important question facing the Republican Party is: When Trump's the only one with the poll numbers to make the main stage at the next debate, what should he do? Card tricks? Juggle? Sing "Danny Boy"?

I don't think that the Ruling class quite understands yet that the people are no longer without a voice.

While Paul Ryan’s omnibus spending bill does not provide funding for the mandatory completion of a 700-mile double-layer border fence that Congress promised the American people nearly a decade ago when it passed the 2006 Secure Fence Act, Paul Ryan has constructed a fence around his property.

As Breitbart News’s photographic documentation reveals, Ryan’s home is surrounded by a tall border fence reinforced by equally high bushes— ensuring both privacy and security. Moreover, the fence is manned by an on-duty agent who guards his property’s perimeter. Upon even the slightest appearance of any unusual activity— such as a 5’2″ female taking a photograph of the fence— Ryan’s border agent will deploy into action to ensure the perimeter’s sovereignty.

...

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)80% has previously highlighted the hypocrisy of immigration expansionists who surround their homes with border fences and monitor who comes on their property but do not apparently believe the American people deserve the same protections. Sessions pointed specifically to open borders advocate Mark Zuckerberg who, according to reports, spent $30 million buying the surrounding four homes around his own property in order to get “a little more privacy.”

Sessions said, “Well, the ‘masters of the universe’ are very fond of open borders as long as these open borders don’t extend to their gated compounds and fenced-off estates.”

On previous occasions, Ryan has repeatedly suggested that the American people are not entitled to discriminate against who enters their country on a visa. When Sean Hannity asked Paul Ryan about whether or not he would support curbs to Muslim immigration, Paul Ryan declared, “That’s not who we are.”

However, Ryan’s fence ensures that no refugees will be able to enter his property without his permission— even as U.S. communities are not able to make any such restrictions.

Not only has Paul Ryan fenced his personal property, he's made it almost impossible to contact him unless you live in his district. I spent nearly an hour last night trying to send him an e-mail and finally gave up.